Feb. 15th, 2007

09:38 am - Anne Frank's family denied visa to the U.S.

Comments:

I don't think any arguments I could make will persuade you, pragmatic or otherwise. And I don't think we could agree on the terms of any bets. So I don't see much point in arguing with you on this issue.

Well, that's a self-fulfilling prophecy, isn't it? If you don't try, you can't succeed. Even if you don't convince me, you could conceivably use me to hone the arguments you'd need to convince thousands of other pragmatists. But you won't even try. Of course, if you don't try can't fail, either. Except that by refusing to even attempt to make a case, you are failing. You will never appeal to anyone outside of those who already accept your ideological premise that freedom of movement across international borders is the one freedom that matters, the only aspect of quality of life worth mentioning.

And they already agree with you. So what have you gained?

And do you think I'm happy or sad that my political opponents like to waste their time preaching to the choir?

There is some merit to argument that I will hone my arguments by arguing with you.

But assuming my goal is to repeal immigration laws, what is the best way to spend my time? Is the best way to spend time arguing with you on LJ? Who is going to read or care about it, other than a few of our friends?

I'd rather spend the time earning more money to finance iniatives that will reach a wider population. Not to mention spending time with my girlfriend, reading, etc.

Let me point it another way. Without knowing what you would regard as evidence that would falsify your beliefs, I could spend years finding evidence and making arguments that have no bearing on the foundations for your particular beliefs. Hell, I don't even know what your beliefs about the border are--there's lot's of gradations between supporting fully open borders and our current system. Presumably, you support some restrictions on immigration. But without knowing what restrictions you support, the facts and arguments upon which base your beliefs, and the evidence you believe would falsify your current beliefs (and thus, presumably, change your mind), it would be a waste of time to try to persuade you of anything.

This isn't a matter of evidence, it's a matter of reasonable hypothesis. You're suggesting, "If we opened our borders, it would make it easier to save Jews in our attic, so we should do that." ernunnos points out that this if we open our borders to everyone, then that means we let the Nazis and the Jew-haters in as well, and there are enough of them out there that they'll just start ignoring the laws or making new laws which let them go around searching all our attics for jews, so we *shouldn't* do that.

He's right, so far as observable evidence shows me. There are more Jew-haters out there than there are Jews. There are more people in Iraq who want to settle old scores and real or imagined slights and who are willing to engage in wanton destruction to achieve their end than there are people who are interested in the rule of law and the dignity of man. History shows me that much of what we enjoy here today (not just here, granted, but here amongst other places) is an end product of thousands of years of peculiar and by-no-means-universal cultural tradition and inheritance that much of the world simply does not share or understand the value of, and your choosing to ignore that and pretend that all people will grok it simply because we let them in does not suggest to me that your hypothesis is one driven by rationality, as opposed to ideology.

BTW, according to the Heritage Foundation's Index of Economic Freedom, there are 10 countries with scores at or above those of the United States. Would you support free migration between those countries and the U.S.?

No. Why would I assume that economic freedom equates to a sharing of the cultural background that produces vibrant and free societies? Singapore, for example, is a one-party state with little actual political freedom; ferinstance, it has no tradition of free speech and dismisses it as a 'disharmonious' Western value. They're right. It *is* a disharmonious Western value, and that's one reason why the West has been dominant over the East since Alexander.